Can an antiquated lens provide an adequate examination and understanding of modern warfare? The theories of Carl von Clausewitz retain remarkable contemporary merit and relevance in explaining the critical elements affecting warfare in the modern era. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories of war endeavor to be comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic. Clausewitz contends that the conduct of war itself is without doubt very difficult. But the difficulty is not that erudition and great genius are necessary to understand the basic principles of warfare.1 Clausewitz 's 1812 essay, the Principles of War, offers military commanders, with little campaign experience, a comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic model for attaining victory in battle.
One is “association”, the linking of two concepts together. This is seen when the 9/11 “attacks” were defined immediately as an “act of war”. Simply put, a crisis such as war rearranges the rhetorical ground. The urgency of the situation requires quick response and establishes a presumption in favor of action. There is no time to consider carefully all the arguments and objections that might arise during peacetime.
We may believe that Bush made a poor decision. However, what alternative did he have? What alternative does Obama have? If we simply say the threat is the fear of tyranny from a president swollen with power from foreign wars, we miss the perverse result our constitution has created. In no small measure, our fear of an overly powerful president waging war abroad has had the unintended result that the government has to become more powerful and intrusive because America will not resolve the constitutional issue.
Longstreet and Lee definitely do not see eye to eye on a lot of things when it comes to the war. The biggest thing that the two disagree about is the war strategy. Longstreet sees that the war is changing and he understands that if the Confederacy keeps using the same tactics for war that they will not come out on top at the end of this war. Longstreet is a firm believer in trench warfare and waiting for the enemy to come to him. Longstreet says at one point, when John Buford’s Calvary is on its way to sneak up on the Confederates, “Now all we have to do is swing around between him Washington and get astride some nice thick rocks and make him come to us, and we’ve got him in the open.” (p. 83).
During his presidency and after the attacks of 9/11, Bush declared war on terrorism in the form of global containment to a global threat. (Bergen L. Peter, “September 11 Attacks). With this action, Bush has effectively created a political platform and government focus that continues and will continue today on wiping out terrorism, more specifically terrorism in the Middle East. This also pressures other foreign nations as a moral obligation to help the U.S. contain such a threat. Another aspect of war that was influenced is the war readiness being a factor in creating war (Ehrenreich, 598).
In hopes of being able to gain support for their potential future war effort he explicitly makes endeavors to exploit that voice of reason by specifically stating what their interpretation of rights are, what they should be, why they deserve them, and how King George overstepped his boundaries. Jefferson’s use of logos was a fundamental component in later gaining foreign support, that of especially from
The aim of this research design is to deduce the outbreak of the conflict with three theories to understand war, such as: human nature theory, democratic peace theory, and neorealism. After that, I will describe why neorealist theory is the more suitable theory for my case study selection. Theories To begin with, the main question is what caused the Cenepa War? In order to explain the question, I will start with Human Nature theory. This theory points out an interest in the individual, specifically in the behavior of man.
The increased commitment from previous presidents made it more difficult and challenging for the successors to withdraw from the Vietnam. Opposed from the mainly accepted orthodox interpretation, revisionist historians argue that the Vietnam War was a futile part in America’s power struggle with communist Russia in a larger Cold War context. As the tensions rose between the Soviet states, so did America’s commitment in the Vietnam
In my opinion, I do not believe that the United States should have intervened, as it doesn 't seem a wise decision. We were a long way from home, in a country and culture we didn 't understand, fighting against a nationalist independence drive much stronger than our own motivations. I think the Vietnam War was an unnecessary war, with ridiculous costs. Outside of containment, I can 't think of a good reason for the United States to have intervened with the Vietnam War. Overall, the Vietnam War changed the way that Americans think about and view war as completely.
Centuries later, Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) developed further the concept of just war. He asserted that three things were necessary for a war to be just: (1) The one declaring war must be a rightful sovereign, a legitimate leader; (2) The nation being attacked must deserve it because of some serious fault or injustice; and (3) The nation doing the attacking must have a good intention such as advancing good or stopping evil. More modern treatments of just war have included the ideas that war must be the last resort after all other options have failed, and the means of prosecuting the war must be proportional to the offence of the nation deserving attack.
The attacks of the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon on September 11th resulted in the legislative response of the Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act signed into law by both congress and George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, exactly a month and fifteen days after the terrorist attack. Solemnly, the Patriot Act was altered to strengthen U.S.measure to deter and punish terrorist acts against the United States. The Patriot Act was intended to "enhance the penalties that will fall on terrorists or anyone who helps them," the words of George W. Bush. I believe the intents of
What were the causes of the Peloponnesian war, and was war inevitable? One of the main causes of war is the disagreement between states on many subjects, and because of this many conflicts between these countries arise, war is something unpredictable, due to how unpredictable it is, it must be studied carefully based on individual circumstances, actions taken by both sides, and the reactions. To prevent war, one must examine the causes of a conflict, they must evaluate the outcome of the conflict, and determine other peaceful alternatives to prevent the conflict. The Peloponnesian war provides an excellent example to be evaluated. In the case of the Peloponnesian war, we have two different powers that were in control of Greece.
It will examine how the current constraints play a role in homeland defense and defense overseas, the tensions between competing interests of homeland security and international support. Finally, how the U.S. can best balance their requirements against the limited fiscal constraints. How We Protect the Homeland Until the terrorist acts of September 11, the U.S. military focused their efforts overseas to fight and win wars; we have since changed the way we do business. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasizes the Department’s first defense strategy to protect the nation. The Department of Defense (DOD) will deter and defeat attacks on the United States and to support civil authorities in potential attacks and natural disasters.” Non-state actors attempt to attack the U.S. and recruit U.S. citizens to participate in attacks against our homeland without warning.
As time elapsed from September 11, 2001, the public began to break ideas about who was to blame for the attacks on September 11. A vast majority believed that the 9/11 attacks were solely to blame from the Islamist radical group, Al-Qaeda, a terrorist regime that sought to rebel against western civilization norms and enact their hate among the United States. The other idea, which is highly noted as a conspiracy theory, was that government knew the terrorist attacks were likely to happen and the only reason the government took a back seat was to conduct a reason to mobilize troops into the war-riddled Middle East. Whether the public believed either or, a paranoia was created, later to be recognized as Post-9/11 Paranoia. This paranoia would harbor certain ideals in American brains, creating a specific view and caution for certain areas, actions and personnel.
This story, with it’s truths is many-sided. Many truths fit the story. Maybe it’s war itself that makes story multilateral. War makes people define some things differently from each other. War is what denies an absolute truth in a war story.